On Freitag 17 Juni 2005 21:02, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> I have started to add some volumetric shadows in Flightgear.
> It uses the standard stencil method to count shadow volume (let me know
> if you want an implementation
> without stencil, it can also be done with the alpha buffer).
> A few days a
On Mittwoch 22 Juni 2005 23:26, Martin Spott wrote:
> Hello,
> will anyone - besides me - attend the LinuxTag this thursday ?
I will be there at Friday.
I guess I will be at the stand of my company science + computing (together
with HP and Novell).
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathia
..just to help future backtraffic searches. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
___
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I typed make and I got the following error:
> >
> > FGNozzle.cpp: In method 'JSBSim::FGNozzle(JSBSim::FGFDMExec *,
> > JSBSim::FGConfigFile *, int =0)':
> >
> > FGNozzle.cpp:74: implicit declaration of function 'int
> > JSBSim::snprintf(..)'
> >
> > Does someone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I typed make and I got the following error:
>
> FGNozzle.cpp: In method 'JSBSim::FGNozzle(JSBSim::FGFDMExec *,
> JSBSim::FGConfigFile *, int =0)':
>
> FGNozzle.cpp:74: implicit declaration of function 'int
> JSBSim::snprintf(..)'
>
> Does someone knows what is wrong
Hi,
I am trying to go to 0version 0.9.8
I typed make and I got the following error:
FGNozzle.cpp: In method 'JSBSim::FGNozzle(JSBSim::FGFDMExec *,
JSBSim::FGConfigFile *, int =0)':
FGNozzle.cpp:74: implicit declaration of function 'int
JSBSim::snprintf(..)'
Does someone knows what i
Hello,
will anyone - besides me - attend the LinuxTag this thursday ?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
___
Flightgear-devel
* Giles Robertson -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 21:58:
> If this were extended to all controls, then it could be used as an
> abstraction for key bindings,
Except that only a part of the bindings is Nasal-based.
> which would allow us to deal with the kb
> localisation issues that were mentioned e
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 21:21 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> * Gerard Robin -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 20:54:
> > Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 19:54 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> > > Oh, you mean the XML interpolation. That is even less concerned ...
>
> > Thank, that is i hoped to ear .
>
> BEFORE:
>
>kbd binding--\
> |> property
>js binding---/
>
>
> NOW (and since a while for flaps and many others):
>
>kbd binding\
>con
On 6/22/05, Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I were you, I'd take a look at net_fdm.h and native_fdm.c. The
> data structure received by FlightGear can easily be modified to
> include whichever parameters you'd like to control from your Matlab
> sim. You just need to add code to set the appro
If I were you, I'd take a look at net_fdm.h and native_fdm.c. The
data structure received by FlightGear can easily be modified to
include whichever parameters you'd like to control from your Matlab
sim. You just need to add code to set the appropriate FlightGear
properties.
It doesn't make sense
Melchior
>
> And this is by no means innovative. Andy had done this for several
> control functions already. Just a few were/are missing. What is "new"
> is the fact that the default bindings for gear and flaps do now also
> report key/button release. This is required for gear/flaps without
> def
* Gerard Robin -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 20:54:
> Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 19:54 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> > Oh, you mean the XML interpolation. That is even less concerned ...
> Thank, that is i hoped to ear .
I don't even know why I answered such a nonsense question. How realistic
is
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 19:54 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> * Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:44:
> > * Gerard Robin -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 18:46:
> > > Is it any consequence when using ?
> >
> > No.
>
> Oh, you mean the XML interpolation. That is even less concerned ...
> ..this is the correct behavior for early WWI era planes powered with
> rotary engines such as the Gnome, Rhone and Oberursel rotaries,
> these were "throttled" by "blipping" the ignition off-n-on to cut power
> to a desirable level. If you're _not_ doing a rotary, it's a bug. ;o)
>
I know I'
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:51:01 -0500, bass wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sending joystick input through Simulink in Matlab to Flightgear
> using the Native-ctrls structure. I am able to control everything
> pretty satisfactorily, everything except the throttle... its gon
Roman Grigoriev wrote:
I would like to add support for them, just in the proper way. That's why
it is still in my TODO box. It's just the time ...
Here are a few things to consider:
1. Move the Shader class over to a new file (probably shader.cxx and
shader.hxx) in SimGear/simgear/screen
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:44:
> * Gerard Robin -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 18:46:
> > Is it any consequence when using ?
>
> No.
Oh, you mean the XML interpolation. That is even less concerned ...
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing l
bass pumped wrote:
ok... I have a question. I want to send a commanded elevator control
surface deflection instead of a stick command to flightgear from
matlab. This means that I cannot use native_ctrls but instead have to
use native_fdm where an option to edit this value does exist. But how
* Gerard Robin -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 18:46:
> Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 16:44 +0200, Gerard Robin a écrit :
> > If i need to keep the old process, what must be done on my side ?
> In addition to my previous question which is waiting for an answer.
I thought I had answered that by underlin
ok... I have a question. I want to send a commanded elevator control
surface deflection instead of a stick command to flightgear from
matlab. This means that I cannot use native_ctrls but instead have to
use native_fdm where an option to edit this value does exist. But how
will I be able to sen
bass pumped wrote:
Throttle position is definitely included in the net_ctrls.hxx
structure. What structure are you using for your matlab communication?
Curt.
yup!!! it is there in native_ctrls. I just thought it might be a
good idea to have it in native_fdm too!! Just a thought!!!
> I think you should share the specifics of the UDP and Matlab version with
> those of us that have been toying with this unsucessfully for months... ;^)
>
Matlab 7 it is. I used the TCP/UDP/IP toolbox by Peter Rydesäter.
You can find it at
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange
>
> Throttle position is definitely included in the net_ctrls.hxx
> structure. What structure are you using for your matlab communication?
>
> Curt.
yup!!! it is there in native_ctrls. I just thought it might be a
good idea to have it in native_fdm too!! Just a thought!!!
_
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 18:50 +0200, Harald JOHNSEN a écrit :
> Gerard Robin wrote:
>
> >Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 09:49 -0500, Alberico, James F a écrit :
> >
> >
> >>> The hardware is able to do it, with the old driver 6229 it can.
> >>>But the average performance is less, because that dr
Gerard Robin wrote:
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 09:49 -0500, Alberico, James F a écrit :
The hardware is able to do it, with the old driver 6229 it can.
But the average performance is less, because that driver
does not suit to these new GPU with GPL 2. May be a bug in
the last NVIDIA drive
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 18:44 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> * Gerard Robin -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 16:44:
> > Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 16:03 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> > > The default "controls" functions ignore this additional information and
> > > should
> > > exactly behave as
* Gerard Robin -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 16:44:
> Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 16:03 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> > The default "controls" functions ignore this additional information and
> > should
> > exactly behave as before.
> If i need to keep the old process,
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 16:44 +0200, Gerard Robin a écrit :
> Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 16:03 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> > The joysticks and default keyboard bindings do no longer set the gear/flap
> > properties directly, but both use wrapper functions in controls.nas. The
> > flaps did
Martin Spott wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > If someone can set me up with ssh access to a shell account (no need
> > to run the whole fgfs binary) on a Mac or SGI or whatnot, let me
> > know. :)
>
> I could offer an account on an UltraSparc with GCC,
As long as the compiler generates 32 bit execut
Hi Steve,
> UTM33N is indeed a coordinate system, probably the system of choice for
> use in Italy, most of the country being in the 33rd 6-degree wide strip
> of the planet, and in the northern hemisphere:
I agree.
> WGS84 is also a coordinate system - the "native" system used by GPS and
> (unl
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 10:25 -0500, Curtis L. Olson a écrit :
> Alberico, James F wrote:
>
> >For what it's worth, additional info on this thread:
> >
> >I saw the same bad performance on an Fx 3400 with new driver. I was not
> >able to find any properties or run options to alleviate the prob
Alberico, James F wrote:
For what it's worth, additional info on this thread:
I saw the same bad performance on an Fx 3400 with new driver. I was not
able to find any properties or run options to alleviate the problem (10
fps or less, when looking at an airfield -- running with enhanced
lighti
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 22 June 2005 16:32:
> Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > The joysticks and default keyboard bindings do no longer set the gear/flap
> > properties directly, but both use wrapper functions in controls.nas. The
> > flaps did this since a while, [...]
>
> Do I feel correctly that t
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 09:49 -0500, Alberico, James F a écrit :
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gerard ROBIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 1:50 PM
> > To: FlightGear developers discussions
> > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Main Airports Conflict
> > w
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerard ROBIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 1:50 PM
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Main Airports Conflict
> withGraphic Card6600GT !!!
> The hardware is able to do it, with the old driver
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 16:03 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> The joysticks and default keyboard bindings do no longer set the gear/flap
> properties directly, but both use wrapper functions in controls.nas. The
> flaps did this since a while, but behave differently now: The bindings don't
> o
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> The joysticks and default keyboard bindings do no longer set the gear/flap
> properties directly, but both use wrapper functions in controls.nas. The
> flaps did this since a while, [...]
Do I feel correctly that this is true also for the throttle ? This
might explain why I
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> To make the gear only move while "g"/"G" is pressed (or the gear buttons
> on the js), and immediately stop movement on release, define for example this
> in, let's say b29.nas:
Sweet.
Josh
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Fli
The joysticks and default keyboard bindings do no longer set the gear/flap
properties directly, but both use wrapper functions in controls.nas. The
flaps did this since a while, but behave differently now: The bindings don't
only report flaps/gear up/down, but also when the button was released. The
bass pumped wrote:
Hi all,
I was working on interfacing flightgear with Simulink via UDP... I'm
happy to say that it worked :-) I used a matlab script file to read
and write data to transfer data to flightgear.
I was looking at the data that is being sent and I realized that of
all the engin
In a message dated 6/22/2005 3:53:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you guys think?
I think you should share the specifics of the UDP and Matlab version with
those of us that have been toying with this unsucessfully for months... ;^)
Mike
__
Martin Spott
> "Roman Grigoriev" wrote:
>
> > We can simply use ARB extension - that support on ATI and NV but if you
> want
> > get some boost knowing some aspects of architecture sometimes up to 30%
> you
> > can simple use vendor specific extentions.
>
> I simply fear exactly such proceeding
"Roman Grigoriev" wrote:
> We can simply use ARB extension - that support on ATI and NV but if you want
> get some boost knowing some aspects of architecture sometimes up to 30% you
> can simple use vendor specific extentions.
I simply fear exactly such proceeding this will manouvre FG into (a)
v
I got the following error while doing make:
FGNozzle.cpp: In method 'JSBSim::FGNozzle(JSBSim::FGFDMExec *,
JSBSim::FGConfigFile *, int =0)':
FGNozzle.cpp:74: implicit declaration of function 'int JSBSim::snprintf(..)'
Thanks in advance,
-
This m
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: list.flightgear-devel
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lights was: Shadows
> "Roman Grigoriev" wrote:
>
> > [...] because you can specify shaders that can be loaded to NV
"Roman Grigoriev" wrote:
> [...] because you can specify shaders that can be loaded to NV only or
> ATI only and during fgfs startup we can detect archtecture and load proper
> shader. for example using NV shaders on NV hardware can get 20% boost to
> framerate.
> and detection of hardware is so e
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lights was: Shadows
> Roman Grigoriev wrote:
>
> > But I don't know about SGI - does this architecture support sha
Ok Ampere
I try to explain so forgive me to my bad english
Lets start from simple For example about runway lights
http://fgfs.narod.ru/glsl.tar.gz
I think that its' not good to use sphere mapping for runway lights points to
calculate visibility and have using triangles instead points. - so you have
Roman Grigoriev wrote:
But I don't know about SGI - does this architecture support shaders at all?
So I think that if you add new classes to simgear people can start using
them and mekes things better.
SGI, ehm, well yes, sort of.
They invented the shaders, but only have a software (CPU)
impl
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lights was: Shadows
> Roman Grigoriev wrote:
> > Sorry Erik
> > I don't want offend anyone here
> > But If I know
Roman Grigoriev wrote:
Sorry Erik
I don't want offend anyone here
But If I know that shaders will be used sometimes in fgfs I will work on
them but there are a lot of work to do and if anyone colud help me we can
work on it. So I propose this http://fgfs.narod.ru/glsl.tar.gz as framework
for usin
Andy Ross wrote:
This is still bad, though. One would expect a version 1.1 API to
remain backwards compatible with the 1.0 API.
Oh, and it's not all bad. They are finally making the API compatible for
all supported platforms. Right now it differs at some places ...
Erik
_
Andy Ross wrote:
Alex Romosan wrote:
Dave Culp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Just curious ... Is there any reason why OpenAl doesn't offer stable
releases?
probably because it's still under development? on their web page
(openal.org) they say they are migrating to openal 1.1 specifications.
a
Hi all,
I was working on interfacing flightgear with Simulink via UDP... I'm
happy to say that it worked :-) I used a matlab script file to read
and write data to transfer data to flightgear.
I was looking at the data that is being sent and I realized that of
all the engine data being sent, thr
Andy Ross wrote:
> This is still bad, though. One would expect a version 1.1 API to
> remain backwards compatible with the 1.0 API.
Look at PLIB, FlightGear depends on it as well and their policy is not
that much different,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who it
On June 21, 2005 03:34 am, Roman Grigoriev wrote:
> to Harald JOHNSEN:
> spot lights in fgfs I had 3 years ago. they worked on vertex program and
> registercombiners but everyone afraid of vertex programs and multitexturing
> You can see some screens here http://fgfs.narod.ru
In my opinion, if the
58 matches
Mail list logo
